DCPP VS. C.L.D., AND M.F. AND D.R., IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF N.M.L., N.L.D., and N.D.D. (FG-04-0159-20, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) ( 2021 )

RECORD IMPOUNDED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-1599-20
NEW JERSEY DIVISION
OF CHILD PROTECTION
AND PERMANENCY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
C.L.D.,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
M.F. and D.R.,
Defendants.
__________________________
IN THE MATTER OF THE
GUARDIANSHIP OF N.M.L.,
N.L.D., and N.D.D., minors.
__________________________
Argued October 20, 2021 – Decided November 12, 2021
Before Judges Hoffman, Geiger, and Susswein.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Camden County,
Docket No. FG-04-0159-20.
Daniel DiLella, Designated Counsel, argued the cause
for appellant (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender,
attorney; Daniel DiLella, on the briefs).
Wesley Hanna, Deputy Attorney General, argued the
cause for respondent (Andrew J. Bruck, Acting
Attorney General, attorney; Donna Arons, Assistant
Attorney General, of counsel; Wesley Hanna, on the
brief).
Nancy P. Fratz, Assistant Deputy Public Defender,
argued the cause for the minors (Joseph E. Krakora,
Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney; Meredith
Alexis Pollock, Deputy Public Defender, of counsel;
Nancy P. Fratz, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant C.L.D. 1 appeals from the January 27, 2021 judgment of
guardianship terminating her parental rights to her minor children, fourteen-
year-old N.L.M. (Nora), eight-year-old N.L.D. (Nina) and four-year-old N.D.D.
(Noah).2 Defendant contends the Division of Child Protection and Permanency
1
Pursuant to Rule 1:38-3(d), we use initials and pseudonyms to protect the
parties' privacy. For ease of reference, we refer to C.L.D. as defendant.
2
None of the fathers of defendant's children are parties to this appeal. Nora's
father voluntarily surrendered his parental rights and the fathers of the other two
children had their parental rights terminated by default. Nora, Nina, and Noah
are now age fourteen, eight, and four, respectively.
A-1599-20
2
(the Division) failed to prove each prong of N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15(a) by clear and
convincing evidence. The Division and the children's Law Guardian urge this
court to affirm.
Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we are satisfied that
the evidence in favor of the guardianship petition overwhelmingly supports the
decision to terminate defendant's parental rights. Accordingly, we affirm
substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Francine I. Axelrad's
comprehensive oral decision. We add the following comments.
To obtain termination of parental rights, the Division must satisfy all four
prongs of the following test:
1) The child's safety, health or development has
been or will continue to be endangered by the
parental relationship;
2) The parent is unwilling or unable to eliminate the
harm facing the child or is unable or unwilling to
provide a safe and stable home for the child and
the delay of permanent placement will add to the
harm. Such harm may include evidence that
separating the child from his resource family
parents would cause serious and enduring
emotional or psychological harm to the child;
3) The Division has made reasonable efforts to
provide services to help the parent correct the
circumstances which led to the child's placement
outside the home and the court has considered
alternatives to termination of parental rights; and
A-1599-20
3
4) Termination of parental rights will not do more
harm than good.
[N.J.S.A. 30:4C:15.1(a).]
These four prongs are neither discrete nor separate, but overlap "to
provide a comprehensive standard that identifies a child's best interests." N.J.
Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. F.M., 211 N.J. 420, 448 (2012) (citation
omitted); In re Guardianship of K.H.O., 161 N.J. 337, 348 (1999). "The
considerations involved are extremely fact sensitive and require particularized
evidence that address[es] the specific circumstances in the given case." N.J.
Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. R.G., 217 N.J. 527, 554 (2014) (citation omitted)
(alteration in original). The Division must prove by clear and convincing
evidence all four statutory prongs. Ibid.Our review of the Family Part judge's decision in a guardianship case is
limited. R.G., 217 N.J. at 552. "[T]he trial court's factual findings should be
upheld when supported by adequate, substantial, and credible evidence." Ibid.
We accord deference to factual findings of the Family Part given its "superior
ability to gauge the credibility of the witnesses who testify before it and because
it possesses special expertise in matters related to the family." F.M., 211 N.J.
at 448. We will not overturn a family court's findings unless they were "so wide
A-1599-20
4
of the mark that the judge was clearly mistaken." N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam.
Servs. v. G.L., 191 N.J. 596, 605 (2007).
We will not recite in detail the history of the Division's involvement with
defendant. Instead, we incorporate Judge Axelrad's factual findings and legal
conclusions. In her oral opinion, Judge Axelrad reviewed the evidence
presented and thereafter concluded that: 1) the Division had proven all four
prongs of the best-interest test by clear and convincing evidence, N.J.S.A.
30:4C-15.1(a); and 2) termination of defendant's parental rights was in Nora,
Nina, and Noah's best interests.
Defendant's children have been in the Division's custody since August 14,
2017, shortly after Noah was born suffering from withdrawal symptoms. In t he
years that followed, the Division provided myriad opportunities for defendant
to reunify with her children and address her long-standing substance abuse and
mental health issues. None of these interventions proved successful because
defendant did not regularly participate in services. Defendant regularly failed
to attend services without providing notice. When defendant participated in
services, she often appeared disinterested or emotionally abused her children.
The Division investigated each family member defendant proffered as
potential caregivers for the children, but none proved suitable. Noah was placed
A-1599-20
5
in three resource homes before finding his current resource home with J.R. and
R.A., who are committed to adopting him. In fact, J.R. and R.A. have taken
steps to facilitate Noah's establishing a relationship with his sisters.
At the request of the Division, Dr. Alan J. Lee, a psychologist, evaluated
the bond between Noah, J.R., and R.A. Although Noah remains in the process
of forming a significant and positive psychological attachment with J.R. and
R.A., Dr. Lee opined that he expected the attachment would solidify in the
coming months. Dr. Lee cautioned that, if Noah were removed from the care of
J.R. and R.A., he would be at a significant risk of harm. Ultimately, Dr. Lee
opined that permanency was important for all children, and that Noah could
readily achieve permanency through adoption by his current caretakers. 3
At the time of Judge Axelrad's opinion, Nora and Nina lived with their
maternal uncle and his girlfriend; however, allegations of abuse caused the
Division to remove the girls from the uncle's home approximately two months
ago. Notwithstanding this recent change of placement, the Division and the Law
3
In March 2020, the court ordered defendant to submit to psychological and
bonding evaluations. Despite receiving notification from the Division,
defendant failed to attend the evaluation, which the Division then rescheduled
multiple times, without success.
A-1599-20
6
Guardian continue to maintain that termination of C.L.D.'s parental rights is in
Nora and Nina's best interests. We agree.
The record contains an abundance of evidence of past and ongoing harm
to all three children caused by defendant's alcoholism, uncontrollable behavior,
inability to provide basic care, physical abuse, and emotional cruelty. Nina and
Noah both suffered withdrawal symptoms following their births. Defendant
repeatedly hit Nora and Nina with a belt and spanked them. Nora carries a scar
under her eye from a cigarette burn. Defendant told Nora to remain in her room
while she entertained men, which Nora overheard. Defendant gave these men
permission to beat Nora and Nina. When she was just four years old, Nina said
"Let's have sex" to another child; in addition, Nina made a sexual gesture in
which she demonstrated a stroking motion on a finger. Nina revealed that she
learned this behavior at home. Furthermore, during an evaluation at N.J. Cares
Institute, Nina divulged that she has seen "grown up parts" and that it would be
too hard to discuss.
Defendant repeatedly missed appointments to see Nora and Nina, leaving
them dejected. Indeed, defendant cancelled appointments to see her children as
punishment for the children not paying enough attention to defendant. When
defendant saw her children, she often ridiculed Nora, calling her "fat" and a
A-1599-20
7
"liar." Nora revealed that defendant "drinks a lot of cough syrup." She also
revealed that defendant "always pops [blue] pills."
In light of these facts, we find it immaterial that Nora and Nina have been
placed in a new resource home. Nothing in the record suggests that the Division
will be unable to find an adoptive home for Nora and Nina. Termination of
defendant's parental rights remains in the best interests of all three children.
After reviewing the record, we conclude that the record fully supports
Judge Axelrad's factual findings and, in light of those facts, her legal
conclusions are unassailable.
Affirmed.
A-1599-20
8